Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Anime and manga and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | WikiProject Anime and manga was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on September 2009. |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Proposed split of List of Pokémon anime characters
[edit]Inactive talk page over at List of Pokémon anime characters, so I'm putting it here as well. (Please respond at the source page, linked directly below)
Nomination of Bleach season 2 for featured list removal
[edit]I have nominated Bleach season 2 for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Bleach season 3 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Bleach season 4 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Bleach season 5 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bleach season 6 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Bleach season 7 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Bleach season 8 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- Bleach season 9 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Bleach season 10 has also been nominated for featured list removal; you are encouraged to join the discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Too many quotes and phrases taken out of context in the Reception sections
[edit]Hello. This is not the first time I have noticed that users overuse full or partial quoting in these sections, preferring to quote the reviewer's direct speech instead of simply retelling his opinion in his own words. Because of this, I often have to read the original source in order to rewrite the text, since such quoting either consists of formulations torn from different parts of the text, or is simply devoid of any context, giving the conventional reader a few random phrases without understanding the idea expressed by the reviewer as a whole. Does the community have any rules for this case? If not, what can be done? Solaire the knight (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's a good idea to read the original source anyway if you're rewriting the text since you'd want to ensure the quotation fits the point that you're rewriting in context.
- WP:QUOTE does say that "Quotations should be representative of the whole source document; editors should be very careful not to quote material out of context to avoid misrepresenting the meanings and intentions of the source" so they should be used with an understanding of the idea expressed as a whole but it is not always the case that this happens. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- I like this approach, but what if users disagree with each other about the general idea of the review? For example, I recently described a conclusion from a review that seemed pretty obvious to me, but another user challenged it, saying it wasn't obvious and was original research. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'd think in those cases it could be taken to the Talk page to resolve the dispute. I don't think this would typically be an issue as long as it's being based on fairly direct statements in the review but I know how some people can be. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- I thought so too, but the user suggested that if things weren't stated directly, then trying to connect them would be original research. But anyway, you're suggesting that these issues be resolved through normal discussion, if I understand you correctly? Solaire the knight (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- I can't speak to this exact situation, but if something is not stated directly, then I would think they shouldn't be used. If there's a discussion over where something counts as stated directly or is inferred by the reader or whether something means the same as the statement made in the article, then best to resolve through normal discussion on the talk page. But more generally, WP:Quote should be used for guidance, along with WP:Cite and other guidance that already have consensus DarkeruTomoe (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- The point was that the reviewer predicted an increase in yuri in the show's second season, citing the show's writer's greater exposure to yuri outside of that title. It wasn't stated outright, but I thought it was obvious, plus the reviewer had already made the same point in the first season review. That is, things were not stated directly, but I personally thought it was obvious if you knew the context. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- I can't speak to this exact situation, but if something is not stated directly, then I would think they shouldn't be used. If there's a discussion over where something counts as stated directly or is inferred by the reader or whether something means the same as the statement made in the article, then best to resolve through normal discussion on the talk page. But more generally, WP:Quote should be used for guidance, along with WP:Cite and other guidance that already have consensus DarkeruTomoe (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- I thought so too, but the user suggested that if things weren't stated directly, then trying to connect them would be original research. But anyway, you're suggesting that these issues be resolved through normal discussion, if I understand you correctly? Solaire the knight (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'd think in those cases it could be taken to the Talk page to resolve the dispute. I don't think this would typically be an issue as long as it's being based on fairly direct statements in the review but I know how some people can be. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- I like this approach, but what if users disagree with each other about the general idea of the review? For example, I recently described a conclusion from a review that seemed pretty obvious to me, but another user challenged it, saying it wasn't obvious and was original research. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Weed (manga)
[edit]Weed (manga) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
The word "vomic" appears in 314 pages, but we do not have an article for it or a relevant definition on Wiktionary. Who is willing to create at least a stub article with a few sources? There is a Japanese Wikipedia page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- While I've seen promotional manga videos on YouTube using the term "voice comic" (such as this one), "vomic" seems to be a trademark of Shueisha, as they're the only ones who have used this specific term. I've also seen "movic" (movie comic) has also been used for dTV. Essentially, they function the same as audio dramas in Japan in general. lullabying (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Statue of Unicorn Gundam
[edit]Statue of Unicorn Gundam is at AfD, if any project members are interested in weighing in or improving the article. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)